My point is that if they aren't trying to argue that, then saying that they should comes very close to being a strawman, because you're presenting a position that you say they should be defending and attacking them for being 'inconsistent' when they don't defend it.

It is very commonly a component of their position. It's even part of your own, if I recall correctly.

As I'm wont to do, I'm throwing out a blog link that is tangentially related to the discussions at hand...but Libby Anne's How I Lost Faith in the “Pro-Life” Movement has quite a bit of good data and information:

It is very commonly a component of their position. It's even part of your own, if I recall correctly.

You mean referring to the potential to grow up? Sorry, doesn't fly.

An infant has the potential to grow into an adult human[1]. So what if someone claimed that, in order for your position to be consistent, you should be okay with parents having the legal right to choose to kill their own infants and children, would you not consider that a strawman argument?

That's exactly the same thing you, and anyone else who uses the argument, are doing by arguing that anti-abortion proponents should seek to protect even sperm and egg cells in order to be fully consistent with what you say their position should be. And that's why I'm speaking out against it. There are far better arguments to use against anti-abortion proponents than such a blatant strawman.

An infant has the potential to grow into an adult human[1]. So what if someone claimed that, in order for your position to be consistent, you should be okay with parents having the legal right to choose to kill their own infants and children, would you not consider that a strawman argument?

If I was citing their potential to grow up as the key to their being granted moral value, then that might be a valid criticism. That's more akin to a pro-lifer's position, however. And to your own, if I recall correctly...mind correcting me on that point, in case I don't?

Also, the "potential" argument cites the presence of a potential to one day be a born human being as granting some form of personhood; not that the potential to not grow up means that such personhood is ruled out.

These things only come up when one cites "potential" to support one's argument in the first place. You've done that, as I recall. Clarify?

That's exactly the same thing you, and anyone else who uses the argument, are doing by arguing that anti-abortion proponents should seek to protect even sperm and egg cells in order to be fully consistent with what you say their position should be. And that's why I'm speaking out against it. There are far better arguments to use against anti-abortion proponents than such a blatant strawman.

It's not a strawman if they actually believe that "potential" is worth protecting on its own. You didn't really turn it around on me, Jaime.

I am of the opinion that if abortion is allowed in cases of rape or incest, "pro-lifers" have already lost the moral battle. You don't even need to include sperm and unfertilized eggs. It's okay to "kill innocent babies" depending on how they were made? But we can't take into account the simple question of whether or not the woman wants to be pregnant or should be pregnant?

In the real world, all kinds of people have sex, even people who should never become parents. Nearly everyone has sex at some point in their lives and some of this sex will result in pregnancy. Most people will start having sex long before they are able to care for a child. Babies are a lot of work to raise and not everyone is capable of that. Some people have fertility problems and can't have kids when they want to.

Real world solutions? Detailed sex ed from pre-puberty onwards; lots of low cost and easily available contraception; medically safe abortion when contraception does not work out, and lots of social and monetary support for all parents (including those who adopt) and children.

In a fantasy world, everyone--male and female-- stays completely celibate until they are financially and emotionally ready to have a child. Around age 30-35. Many people therefore never have sex. Ever. There is no rape or incest. Nobody ever gets drunk or high at a party and does something stupid and sexual.

All children are planned, wanted and cared for well by whoever produces them. There is no need for contraception or abortion because everyone is celibate unless they are ready to be parents. And no sex ed is needed in middle or high schools because nobody younger than 35 is having sex.....

Nobody has a baby to trap a partner or to move out of the parent's home. Nobody ever gets a divorce, or is abandoned by their partner after pregnancy occurs. And no pregnancy ever leads to health problems of any kind. No parent ever gets a mental illness, a chronic disease or dies before their child becomes a self-supporting adult.

^^^I don't think this scenario has ever happened anywhere on the planet. Correct me if I am wrong.

Bottom line: Unwanted pregnancy, regardless of how the pregnancy got started, is the reason for most abortions. Contraception use reduces unwanted pregnancy and therefore reduces the need for abortions. Banning abortion does not reduce unwanted pregnancies. It may not even reduce abortion that much, only make it more shady, more dangerous and more of a shameful secret due to its criminal nature. The fetuses will still die. Along with women and girls.[1]

If people want fewer abortions, they should do everything possible to reduce unwanted pregnancies. That is the only rational policy-- and every country that has tried it has better outcomes than policies based on the fantasy world scenario.

If people want fewer abortions, they should do everything possible to reduce unwanted pregnancies. That is the only rational policy-- and every country that has tried it has better outcomes than policies based on the fantasy world scenario.

Yes a thousand times. Which, as you point out, shows up the anti-choice crowd's claim that they're all about "protecting the unborn" as a hollow lie[1]. What they want to do is punish women (and the male partners who support them) who are faced with an unwanted pregnancy.

I agree, that "potential" reasoning doesn't fly. PP's post is a good illustration of why.

Either you misconstrued what I was saying, or you misunderstood it. Neither is helpful to the discussion, so I'll clarify what I'm actually trying to get across shortly.

Quote from: Azdgari

If I was citing their potential to grow up as the key to their being granted moral value, then that might be a valid criticism. That's more akin to a pro-lifer's position, however. And to your own, if I recall correctly...mind correcting me on that point, in case I don't?

Also, the "potential" argument cites the presence of a potential to one day be a born human being as granting some form of personhood; not that the potential to not grow up means that such personhood is ruled out.

These things only come up when one cites "potential" to support one's argument in the first place. You've done that, as I recall. Clarify?

The point I'm trying to bring up isn't about my personal position regarding abortions. My argument here, in this thread, is that trying to claim that a person using the 'potential' argument should therefore seek to have every possible egg cell fertilized is ultimately a strawman. It is a misrepresentation of their actual position, based on what you think they should mean by it rather than what they actually do mean, and that makes it a strawman.

More to the point, using it will not help your case and might very well weaken it. It certainly will not help you accomplish your goal of getting through to people with whom you disagree. Someone versed in fallacies will recognize it; someone not versed in them will still at least recognize that your argument is not addressing what they're actually saying.

Quote from: Azdgari

It's not a strawman if they actually believe that "potential" is worth protecting on its own. You didn't really turn it around on me, Jaime.

I'm not trying to turn it around on you. I'm trying to help you see that your argument is flawed. Using a flawed argument doesn't help your case and it might backfire on you.

Remember, I am pro-choice. Guys, I understand the view you have of the clump of cells. But in my mind, the potential of those only human cells - not chicken, not fish, not plant, not fruit fly cells - are what sets the cells apart. We all draw the line somewhere. I guess under cross examination by the lawyer, my view would force me to admit to the jury that abortion at that stage is murder. In that light I am more emotional than logical. Your view allows you to not admit that abortion at that stage is murder. But all these are our own views, our own decisions, the way it should be.

Adzgari rightly jumped me.

Quote

Now you are calling everyone who disagrees with you a liar.

Quote

Is that the emotional origin of your "you're a murderer, women" accusation?

I certainly did not intend to say everyone who disagrees with me is a liar, or every women a murderer. After I read your accusations, Adzgari, I told myself to drop the thread and keep my mouth shut. The abortion debate is never-ending. Silly me, I'm not that smart. With the debate about where we draw the line, I just need to say - I, me, for myself, think it is at conception - not at the twinkle in an eye stage, sperm or egg stage, and not at 1st, 2nd, 3rd trimester, or when the fetus is viable, or when the baby is born. I've thought about it for a long time, where and why to draw the line for myself, and that is what I have decided.

That individual view should mean nothing to anyone else. The issue of abortion is too important to have someone else demand what happens. We all know why we, as pro-choice advocates, get angry at the pro-lifers trying to legislate a women's right to choose. Why should it then be correct to ask that I change where I draw the line?

^^^I understand where you are coming from, and I like the fact that you realize that your personal feelings have no weight on what other people do about having or not having an abortion.

I just saw a homeless young 20-something white woman in the park near my local library. She was hanging out with a few scruffy-looking white guys and a black woman all about her same age.[1]She had on dirty pink and white bunny ears over her stringy, greasy hair. She looked like she hadn't bathed in a long time. Her winter coat would not button because she was about 5-6 months pregnant, her belly clearly beginning to push out of her non-maternity clothes. She is not able to care for herself very well, dealing with whatever issues have her living outside in the park as winter approaches. She does not have much of a support system, probably can't hold a job and very likely has drug, drinking and/other health problems.

She is also clearly having unprotected sex--maybe as a way to earn money. Or perhaps she was assaulted by one of the homeless men. My personal feeling is that she should have had an abortion as soon as she knew she was pregnant. I would even be tempted to say she should still have an abortion, even this late in the process. If I was queen of the world, she would get a tubal ligation along with the abortion.

Because this young woman should under no circumstances be trying to care for a baby. The baby will, if lucky, end up going straight from that woman's body into emergency foster care and adoption. If unlucky, the woman will refuse to give up the newborn and will take it out of the emergency room where she gave birth. The child will end up seriously neglected, abused or abandoned. If it survives all that, it will then end up as an older, not as cute, less-adoptable child with serious emotional problems, in foster care or a state facility. By the time the kid is a tough, angry, mentally disturbed 12 year old, she will not be adopted. She will run away from foster homes. And she will be on her way to having a life like just her mother's. Drugs and prostitution. If male, add in gangs and jail as a real possibility.

But just like you, shnozzola my personal feelings have no bearing on what she has decided to do. And I am willing to pay for the safety net that is no doubt going to have to catch her child at some point in the near future.....

There were a LOT of homeless folks near the park tonight. More than the usual down-and-out-looking older white guy contingent. I wonder if today is the day they get some sort of benefit from the social service center across the street.

I happen to think that killing a 'potential human'[1] that cannot survive on it's own is acceptable. For that matter, there are grown adults that I'm perfectly happy admitting the world and human race is better off without.

Most of us, if we're being honest can probably come up with at least half a dozen specific sets of circumstances where we would be comfortable with the idea of ending a life, let alone a 'potential human'.

It is a misrepresentation of their actual position, based on what you think they should mean by it rather than what they actually do mean, and that makes it a strawman.

I understand what you are saying, but it's not. It is showing that they have made an argument for their position, but that they arbitrarily apply that argument when it suits them, and if they were to actually follow that argument, they would end up in an absurd place. We do this all the time with theists.

They say, "they bible says X" We say, "yes, it does. but the bible also says horrible things Y and Z. So, the bible is no basis."

Or they say something like "demons cause cancer"We might ask why they draw the line at cancer and not every other ailment?

These are all taking their ideas to their logical conclusions to illustrate the point that their ideas are flawed. Az, I and others have pointed out that "potential life" is a stupid argument because "potential" can mean a lot of other things - ova, sperm, cloning, etc. That is not a strawman argument. "Potential" is not thought through. It is an undeveloped argument. If "potential" then why not ova, sperm or blood cells for cloning? What is the distinction? The approach we have used is a rhetorical way of bringing this up. So far, it has been answered with... what?

It's not. Taking their rationale to the absurd, logical conclusion is a valid method of showing a flaw in thought and reason.

And in some cases that works.

Quote from: screwtape

I understand what you are saying, but it's not. It is showing that they have made an argument for their position, but that they arbitrarily apply that argument when it suits them, and if they were to actually follow that argument, they would end up in an absurd place. We do this all the time with theists.

They say, "they bible says X" We say, "yes, it does. but the bible also says horrible things Y and Z. So, the bible is no basis."

Granted, but it's a different situation, because that kind of Bible believer actually does try to argue that the Bible is the literal Word of God, so arbitrarily applying parts of the Bible (but not other parts) is hypocrisy on their part. I suppose it's possible that there are anti-abortion proponents who actually would argue that all human life (right down to sperm and egg cells) is sacred/should be protected, and this argument would be totally valid against them. And on the opposite end, ignoring babies after they're born (aside from recommending adoption, which is not really a solution).

Quote from: screwtape

Or they say something like "demons cause cancer"We might ask why they draw the line at cancer and not every other ailment?

These are all taking their ideas to their logical conclusions to illustrate the point that their ideas are flawed. Az, I and others have pointed out that "potential life" is a stupid argument because "potential" can mean a lot of other things - ova, sperm, cloning, etc. That is not a strawman argument. "Potential" is not thought through. It is an undeveloped argument. If "potential" then why not ova, sperm or blood cells for cloning? What is the distinction? The approach we have used is a rhetorical way of bringing this up. So far, it has been answered with... what?

An argument I've used in the past is that once conception and implantation happens, then barring some complication that causes an embryo to die, it'll ultimately be born, so that should be taken into account when deciding whether to have an abortion. Of course, there are other things that need to be taken into account. Unlike the personhood nuts and other anti-abortion types, I don't try to say that the fetus is the only important concern. It's too complicated for the simplistic solutions that they try to advocate, too, as real life tends to be. And that's why I consider myself pro-choice.

Now, if there are people who do try to claim that the 'potential' argument should have ultimate precedence, then I could see this kind of rhetoric working.

Or they say something like "demons cause cancer"We might ask why they draw the line at cancer and not every other ailment?

Now they are saying sin causes genetic mutations, and thus aging XD.

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Just coming on to say this, Jaime, as it's the only contribution I can make that Screw hasn't already addressed...

Quote

I suppose it's possible that there are anti-abortion proponents who actually would argue that all human life (right down to sperm and egg cells) is sacred/should be protected, and this argument would be totally valid against them.

Those who say that potential/future human life is sacred/should be protected are saying that sperm and egg cells are sacred/should be protected - it is a logical consequence of that position, one they probably don't even realize. Pointing that out is the entire point of the line of argument you object to.

The ones who cite "potential" to grow up as being the thing to be preserved have no reason to draw the line as late as conception. They are being inconsistent if they do so.

Sorry to paste another link, but this reminded me of an awesome post one of my contributors made, mainly against apologist JT Wartick. Schueler is an evolutionary molecular biologist and he approached personhood in a biological manner. What is the biological difference between entities at fertilisation etc which brings about claims of personhood?

Women are wired with strong maternal instincts and an abortion is usually emotionally wrenching, often leading to a lifetime of guilt. Abortions are a major operation involving the removal of a significant amount of tissue ( a fetus ) with the risk of bleeding and infection. And invasive? I have difficulty submitting to a colonoscopy.

Sure it's her "choice" to have sex and to have an abortion in the sense that she usually can physically avoid both, but in practice women often come under considerable pressure to have sex and without protection. Men don't like to wear condoms. I don't. Husbands are known to insist on unprotected sex and teenage girls are often desperate to keep a boy. To dismiss these women and say that they made their choice and have to live with the consequences seems cruel and heartless.

And of course women get raped far more often than is reported. There is the matter of birth defects of course and a woman may start a pregnancy with a partner and later find that she will have to raise the child on her own.

Men make the same mistakes but rarely bear the consequences. It's much easier emotionally for a man to walk away and many do, many more than mothers who abandon their babies. They even shirk their responsibilities to children who have been born. Honestly, I don't know if I fathered a child in my youth and I never cared to find out. I slept with women, too often without protection, and forgot about them as many young men do. It doesn't bother me much now either unless I make myself think about it and dwell on the possible consequences of what I did. I don't suffer the anguish of a woman who has "killed her baby" as many women do feel.

Few of us are wise all the time, especially when it comes to love and sex but women can suffer serious consequences while men escape their mistakes with little pain. Surely women deserve sympathy and support rather than being told something like "Yeah? Well you fucked him. Now spread your legs and bleed!"

Logged

I was a hidden treasure and I longed to be known. So I created the Creation so that I may be known. hadith qudsi

Abortions are a major operation involving the removal of a significant amount of tissue ( a fetus ) with the risk of bleeding and infection.

Not all of them What do you consider a "significant amount of tissue"? At 20 weeks, before which the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed, a fetus is just more than 1/2 pound and about 6.6" long.[1] If it were a tumor, it would be considered large. But the procedure carries far less risk than, well, any other surgery this side of a root canal.

I don't have to agree with her. I only have to agree that it isn't my choice to make.

So long as the choice remains the woman's her reason for choosing an abortion are her own. She can do it as birth control, she can do it to win a playstation, or because she likes getting abortions. Perhaps she thinks she auto-sending souls to heaven.

I would prefer, of course that women not do this for various personal reasons, but ultimately I must accept that for people to have the freedom to choose, they must also have the freedom to choose something I disagree with.

Logged

Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Those who say that potential/future human life is sacred/should be protected are saying that sperm and egg cells are sacred/should be protected - it is a logical consequence of that position, one they probably don't even realize. Pointing that out is the entire point of the line of argument you object to.

Women are wired with strong maternal instincts and an abortion is usually emotionally wrenching, often leading to a lifetime of guilt.

Wrong!

Women aren't wired with strong maternal instincts. Biologically women have a lot more at stake when it comes to rearing their offspring, so mothers' bodies produce hormones that make them feel good and bond with their babies, and therefore want to take care of them. None of that actually happens until birth. At that time her body is flooded with oxytocin.

Mother and woman are not synonyms!

Girls are culturally conditioned to want babies, and to be caretakers in general.[1] Biology doesn't require a desire for motherhood, all it requires is a desire for sex. As the educational level for women increases in a given country, and access to reliable BC is available, the fertility rates plummet. When we have a choice you'll see that we choose fewer children. The numbers of women like me who actively choose to have zero children is greatly increasing in the developed world.

"Baby fever" is a real feeling, but it's roots are cultural, not biological. There are many men who feel it, and many women who don't.

In many countries a woman's only value is as a mother. Hell, in the U.S. women who choose not to have kids are seen as an aberration and often looked down upon by family, coworkers, and even strangers.

This was not as irresponsible as it might sound. I've kept chickens for the better part of a decade, although this was my first time raising them from chicks. While it was a rather spur of the moment decision it was done with more rationality than squee, but still lots of squee.

I don't have a collection of posts handy, I just know that it comes up a lot when arguing this subject, as an objection to abortion. And though I don't feel like digging through thousands of posts, I do firmly remember that you yourself brought up "potential to grow into a human being" as being the critical factor in granting moral worth to a neonate in a discussion between the two of us on the topic way back. Does my memory fool me? I've asked this twice already in this thread, in different forms...

Women are wired with strong maternal instincts and an abortion is usually emotionally wrenching, often leading to a lifetime of guilt.

Wrong!

Women aren't wired with strong maternal instincts. Biologically women have a lot more at stake when it comes to rearing their offspring, so mothers' bodies produce hormones that make them feel good and bond with their babies, and therefore want to take care of them. None of that actually happens until birth. At that time her body is flooded with oxytocin.

Mother and woman are not synonyms!

Girls are culturally conditioned to want babies, and to be caretakers in general.[1] Biology doesn't require a desire for motherhood, all it requires is a desire for sex. As the educational level for women increases in a given country, and access to reliable BC is available, the fertility rates plummet. When we have a choice you'll see that we choose fewer children. The numbers of women like me who actively choose to have zero children is greatly increasing in the developed world.

"Baby fever" is a real feeling, but it's roots are cultural, not biological. There are many men who feel it, and many women who don't.

In many countries a woman's only value is as a mother. Hell, in the U.S. women who choose not to have kids are seen as an aberration and often looked down upon by family, coworkers, and even strangers.

I agree-- so much is cultural. And it is hard to say how "guilty" or "wrenching" the abortion experience will be to a woman without looking at the social environment. A woman raised around people who say having a 10 week abortion is the exact same thing as beating a 6 month old child to death is probably going to feel a lot more guilt. She might attend a religious support program that lays on more guilt, and later join an anti-abortion group to make speeches about how awful she feels about her abortion.

None of the women I have known (who had abortions) discussed feeling especially guilty, except to wish their lives had not been messed up to the point where they were having random unprotected sex, necessitating the abortion. The abortion was an unpleasant but needed solution, not a problem. They knew that they were not ready to deal with pregnancy or motherhood and did not have the support of family, etc.

I believe a woman should have the choice to abort a baby if she feels like she would not be able to support it or it would not be safe to deliver. What do you guys think? I am very new to the topic due to my young age. -Shaffy

Logged

We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it.

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.